Transcript HISTORY - Pimicikamak

After the Occupation:
Process Agreement Update
April 1, 2015
Kate Kempton
Briefing prepared by
1
HISTORY
Treaty 5 (1875):
• Signed by Tepastenam
• Different understanding of parties:
• Supposed to be about sharing and
equality, but means taking and
subjugation to Crown
Indian Act (1876)
• Racism, dispossession, creation of Band
system
2
HISTORY
Northern Flood Agreement (1977)
• Supposed to remedy “taking” and damages from Hydro development
• Not well implemented
Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution
• High level status to Aboriginal and Treaty rights under Canadian law
• Has not gone far enough
3
2014 JENPEG OCCUPATION
2014: Crown still taking, NFA still not
being implemented, Crown controlling
Hydro project.
4
TIMELINE
 October 6, 2014 - Letter and Eviction notice to Scott
Thompson, CEO and President, Manitoba Hydro from
Chief Catherine Merrick
 October 17, 2014 - The people of Pimicikamak evict
Manitoba Hydro from the Jenpeg Generation Station
on Kichi Sipi
TIMELINE
 November 5, 2014 Pimicikamak, Manitoba Hydro
and Manitoba Sign
Memorandum of Agreement
 November 27, 2014 - Signed
Process Agreement
PROCESS AGREEMENT
Agreement between Pimicikamak, the
government of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro
PROCESS AGREEMENT
Process to address taking and subjugation
from Hydro Project. Goals:
1. SHARING:
Full NFA implementation
Revenue sharing
2. EQUALITY:
Mutual NFA implementation
Co-management over Hydro operations
THE “MAIN TABLE”
 3 Parties (Pim, MB, MH):
 Make major decisions
Pimicikamak,
Manitoba,
Manitoba Hydro
 “Main Table”:
 Where 3 parties negotiate and make
decisions to implement Northern Flood
Agreement
Main Table
 “Working Group”
 Technical work on workplans, budgets,
plans for revenue sharing, etc.
 Brings all work to Main Table for
approval
Working
Group
9
PROCESS AGREEMENT
Legally binding on Manitoba and Hydro.
Different from 1998 political accord
from NFA Crown parties, after road
protest.
PROCESS AGREEMENT
Article 6:
Improved NFA relationship and implementation,
new program funding
Article 7:
Policy Issues: revenue sharing, co-management, etc.
Article 8:
Improving financial management
FUNDING
Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro fund Pimicikamak’s
work under the Process Agreement
 Process costs:
 Representatives, lawyers, and experts at Main Table and
Working Group
 Development of workplans and budget at Working
Group
 Substance costs:
 Programs for NFA Article 6, Article 7, Article 8, etc.
 Administrative costs: Pimicikamak office and staff
DISCUSSIONS THUS FAR
 Programs to implement NFA
 Multiplex planning, softball field, fuel wood, safety monitoring, etc.
 Reserve 19D resolution
 Accommodation for cumulative effects of Hydro Project
 Bipole III work camps: consultation and accommodation
 Financial /Management systems for Pimicikamak
UPCOMING ISSUES
Finalizing 19D settlement
Status of Pimicikamak under the NFA (April)
Revenue Sharing (June)
NFA ARBITRATION CLAIMS
 NFA claims still being actively pursued.
 Some may be settled through negotiations at Main Table.
Ongoing claims:
11 (recreation)
34 (employment)
43 (land exchange)
109 (damages for Nednak road/bridge)
131 (navigable waters)
164 (health impacts)
183 (Jenpeg forebay debris)
648 (consultation re: Keeyask)
QUESTIONS
16